(PC) Pierce v. Lopez et al, No. 1:2010cv00486 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's 13 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/23/2010. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 1/27/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF

(PC) Pierce v. Lopez et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SEBREN A. PIERCE, 11 12 CASE NO. Plaintiff, 1:10-cv-00486-AWI-MJS (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. 13 R. LOPEZ, et al, (ECF No. 13) 14 15 16 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS / 17 18 19 Plaintiff Sebren A. Pierce (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his 20 original Complaint on March 18, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) He then moved to file an amended 21 complaint, and the Court allowed it. (ECF Nos. 9 & 11.) Plaintiff’s First Amended 22 Complaint was filed June 4, 2010. (ECF No. 12.) No other parties have appeared in the 23 action. The Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 24 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 25 26 13.) Plaintiff claims that the head law librarian has twice refused him access to the law 27 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 library resources. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring that he be allowed two visits to the law library per day, that the head law librarian not have any more contact with him, that the librarian face fines and confinement if contact persists, and that certain listed materials be 4 5 6 given to Plaintiff to pursue his legal matters. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo where the 7 balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to 8 intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. 9 University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is 10 available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and 11 12 13 the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th 14 Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of 15 irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance 16 of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair 17 chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id. 18 Here, a preliminary injunction would not serve to ensure that Plaintiff is able to 19 20 litigate his action more effectively or efficiently---there are no looming deadlines in the 21 action. Moreover, issuance of the order sought by Plaintiff in his motion would not remedy 22 any of the claims alleged in this action.1 23 24 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction be DENIED. 25 26 27 1 The Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s Com plaint. However, a cursory review of it indicates that he com plains of inadequate m edical care. A court order granting Plaintiff law library access to litigate this action would not rem edy the underlying claim s. 2 1 2 3 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and 4 5 6 Recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 7 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 8 to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: 13 ci4d6 December 23, 2010 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.